Rate the new AI
- Thread starter Sephi
- Start date
Bill Bisco
Callous Calling
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 590
The AI a lot better. It can still be pretty dumb, but now it's more dangerous and challenging and better. My fear is that Kael has already made the AI dumber by going back to the old ways of having some civs absolutely refuse to adopt or research some religions.
Sephi
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,315
I think you confuse your opinion with universial truth. The purpose of this poll, as I stated before, is curiosity. There are always people who like changes and those who dislike them. It's the big picture I am curios about.
readercolin
King
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 604
The AI is significantly better than it was before the patch. That doesn't mean that its perfect, and it still does some reaaaaly dumbass things, like attacking with archer stacks... I also don't like how the AI tends to focus on really large stacks, but still has trouble using magic (I haven't played much into the teir 3 stuff, game is usually over before then). It also is much better in that it can actually get out of the teir 1-2 stuff - I faced Calibam using vampires when I had horse archers and axmen. Before, it was using axmen (if it was lucky) while I was stomping it with Phalanxes.
-Colin
-Colin
Kael
Deity
Specifically what is broken?
The games are definitely alot harder. it bumped me from deity to emperor pretty fast. those huge stacks are just scary and make you think twice before DoW. they seem to be using magic as well which is fun, and the late game is alot less point and click, and more, "i hope i can still pull out a win."
the point of a video game isn't to have the AI play as closely to the way as you play. the point of the game is to have an experience to overcome obstacles that the AI throws in your way. While it may be in the designers best interest to try and have the opposition think like you think, it is not necessary for the player to have fun. if you really want the best AI, play hotseat by yourself. this is already implemented in the game and will provide you with the best possible opponent you can imagine. think about any game you have enjoyed in the past, whether it be mario bros, golden axe or even halo. if the AI played just like you, you would hate it. goombas jumping on you, baddies casting magic while in trouble, or elites picking up healthpacks and spamming grenades? No, obstacles are put in front of you that you must overcome, just cause they don't do it the way you would have doesn't mean it is broken.
Senethro
Overlord
People who really believe this exist and think the two views are completely exclusive?
Well, maybe it'd be appropriate to do what Blake did with his BetterAI mod (that got folded into one of the later BTS patches). Give DarkxLord his sandbox AI as standard and turn the Aggressive AI option into a challenge mode where the AI tries its very best to win by playing like a human. (Include behaviours like AIs below friendly declare war at Altar VI, starting Tower of Mastery, 2 cities at Legendary culture)
And just to add my own 2c Kael, the AI maintenance and unit upgrade costs for all difficulty levels need revising now that the AI is capable of having a real economy. Halving the difference between human and AI at each difficulty level might be a good starting point for tests.
(and then once it can be known what size of stacks players may typically be dealing with, perhaps you could please take a look at how Direct Damage spells hit stacks!)
Emptiness
[]
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,922
Alas, you've got me there.
Your AI feedback thread is full of examples of the problems. I'm still compiling my own list, which I'll post there (probably) later this week.
I agree with you about obstacles vs emulation. I don't expect the AI to mimic me, nor do I care to play against myself. Part of what makes an opponent fun is that he, she or it doesn't do what you would do. The problems I see are not about the AI not playing the game "my way", they're about fundamental gaps in the AI's "understanding" of game truths.
I said I'd give a list later, but I'll mention one example here just so that I don't leave that last statement unsupported. An Archer defending a hill city is a tough foe, but there is some number of Axemen that can kill such an Archer. I'm fairly confident that number is much less than 30. So when I see 60 enemy Axemen approaching one of my hill cities, defended by two Archers, I expect the city to fall in short order. When the Axemen halt their attack, and mill around waiting for who knows what, rather than lose a few to achieve victory, then I conclude: AI broken.
On the positive side the AI seems to find much better city spots than before and also tech much better.
On the negative side it looks like the big stacks of units really aren't helping the AI. They just don't know how to use them. The AI should be taught to attack more even when defending. Just today I conquered the Kurios with just ten wizards. They never attacked back and their stacks died in endless volleys of fireballs, whether in or outside cities. If they had made one counterattack the game would have been over on my side.
On the negative side it looks like the big stacks of units really aren't helping the AI. They just don't know how to use them. The AI should be taught to attack more even when defending. Just today I conquered the Kurios with just ten wizards. They never attacked back and their stacks died in endless volleys of fireballs, whether in or outside cities. If they had made one counterattack the game would have been over on my side.
Ahh, but we're halfway there. You only had two archers in your hill city because you're not used to megastacks. So broken, perhaps, but only half as much as it used to be.
Just for a counterpoint, I nearly lost a hill city this morning. It was defended by 2 archers, 3 bronze axemen, a ghost, and Rathus. They held off two stacks of 10 axe/10arch in three turns before reinforcements arrived. Only Rathus and the ghost survived. (note - using no-catapult patch (h?))
Just for a counterpoint, I nearly lost a hill city this morning. It was defended by 2 archers, 3 bronze axemen, a ghost, and Rathus. They held off two stacks of 10 axe/10arch in three turns before reinforcements arrived. Only Rathus and the ghost survived. (note - using no-catapult patch (h?))
Kael
Deity
AI broken is a confusing term to me as it implies a works/doesn't work situation. Bu I understand what you are saying now.
With AI we have to prioritize the bad behavior and try to improve it. There are fundamentals that have to exist before unit logic matters. For example the AI has to build a competitive city and army. If the AI is flondering with warriors when you have champions then the best unitai in the world doesn't help.
So step one was to hit the economy and build order hard. Sephi's code really helped here as well as some great ideas from Turinturambar. Now we have an AI that is better at building its army. And on we go to the next issue that presents itself.
Honestly I havent seen the issue you describe (the ai failing to attack when it has superior numbers). In fact I've seen the opposite, the Ai suicides against my stack and I dont take any losses. But I dont doubt what you are saying (gettign that feedback is the reason we ask these questions).
The holy grail of Ai testign is if you can provide a save where you have the problem condition occurring. Thats perfect for me since I can play with the values and have the AI retry, rather than just making a change and hoping it address the issue you are seeing.
Thanks again for your help on this, and all the tiem you spend answering questions here. If you didn't notice, with patch "h" your name was added to the thanks main menu graphic.
Don't get me wrong. im all for the AI playing like me in this particular game, but im not going to say that the AI is broken because it doesn't. I brought up the point of other games simply to show that in video games in which the AI doesn't play just like you can still be fun. I just cant understand why people just cant enjoy what they have. this game is soooooo much fun. how can it be so fun if the basic principles are broken?
popejubal
Emperor
I give it a seven.
It's got a good beat and the tune is catch, but it's not great to dance to.
It's got a good beat and the tune is catch, but it's not great to dance to.
Well, I would like an AI so sharp that I need to cheat to become a challenge - not the other way round. Still, it is much better than before and I never get what I want anyway.^^
P.S. I´ve seen archers (i.e., stacks of dwarfen slingers) committing mass suicides against my cities, too. And it wouldn't hurt, if the AI could spare a minor unit (one horsy might be enough) pillaging in the wake of larger stacks - especially when it could deny the enemy access to strategic resources that way. Although flexibilty is a good thing in the field, sometimes it might help to stick to the plan. Often an attacking stack turns around, when you capture one of the minor AI cities, although it had you by the thingy. But hey, the AI falls to a ploy - that is progress.
P.S. I´ve seen archers (i.e., stacks of dwarfen slingers) committing mass suicides against my cities, too. And it wouldn't hurt, if the AI could spare a minor unit (one horsy might be enough) pillaging in the wake of larger stacks - especially when it could deny the enemy access to strategic resources that way. Although flexibilty is a good thing in the field, sometimes it might help to stick to the plan. Often an attacking stack turns around, when you capture one of the minor AI cities, although it had you by the thingy. But hey, the AI falls to a ploy - that is progress.
Well, I think that to be WAD and rightfully so! Roleplaying issues and efficieny need to be balanced or this great mod might lose its charm (npowi).
I think the new AI is better economically but worse with its units. Some civilizations seems to be doing their distinctive things, if not very well: lots of Calabim vampires, Kurios build Centaurs, Sheim spam pyre zombies... but the vampires don't seem to be feasting properly, and other civs aren't building their distinctive units at all -- Hippus for example don't seem to ever build any mounted units.
Medicine_Man_55
Warlord
The AI not using naval units is a problem (patch g). The AI is also not using high-end units for certain civs, the Clan of Embers and Lurichep in particular. This most likely has something to do with their upgrade paths, or lack thereof.
None of these comments are intended to knock on Sephi's work. The AI is a big step in the right direction. There is just more work to be done, particularly regarding certain civs' military strategies (Hippus should prolly use more mounted units too).
